User talk:SchrutedIt08/Archive 3

Airdates
Given your involvement in List of The Firm episodes, you should be aware that there is a huge discussion going on about original airdates at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out when I have a chance. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation!
Hello, I would like to thank you for your contributions to a Grey's Anatomy-related article. Since it appears you are interested in this topic, I would like to personally invite you to join WikiProject Grey's Anatomy! This project consists of a group of users, collaborating to make articles related to Grey's Anatomy better. Our primary goal is to get as many articles as we can promoted to good and featured statuses, by developing, and reverting vandalism to them. We would be extraordinarily pleased if you decided to join our WikiProject, and help make a difference. If you are interested, all you have to do is add this code:, to your user page, and you are officially a member. If you are having trouble joining, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Again, thank you for your help, and I hope to see you as a member of the project soon!

Your opinion is needed
Hi, SI08. Could you weigh in on an issue? The category for The Killing's userboxers has been nommed for deletion. I would appreciate your support. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks for the heads up. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Much appreciated! SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Killing (season 2) finale episode summary
Your lengthy paragraph looks awkward compared to the rest of those listed. Three sentences or so for the others and then there's the behemoth at the end? One editor also criticized the "spoilers" here. I always thought summaries on seasonal pages should be short if (and only if) there are episode pages. I realize you added your info in the middle of the night (my time zone) and was first, but that's beside the point. —  Wylie Coyote  00:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really understanding your position here. Whether or not it looks awkward is beside the point, the aesthetics of an article are kind of irrelevant as long as its functional. What matters is availability of information. I wrote the summary spontaneously after watching the episode (which was in the middle of the afternoon Aussie time incidentally; it has nothing to do with being first) for the people who wanted a summary of events without having to navigate to the episode article. As for the complaint about spoilers, as the original poster pointed out, Wikipedia does not censor information simply because it could be considered a plot spoiler. It's common sense to avoid summary sections if you don't want to be spoiled and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who want to know who the killer was and how they were revealed without having to watch the whole episode. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So we should not do episode articles either, as it's just easier to do summaries on the seasonal/episode list pages? In retrospect, after doing 26 episode articles on this show that dropped the ball, in many aspects, at the end of Season 2, as well as the fights I've had to do to upload screenshots for the Infobox images, it probably would've been better for me to have just stuck with the seasonal pages. The people "who want to know who the killer was and how they were revealed without having to watch the whole episode" are the reason for the low ratings this season, when Wikipedia will reveal everything they need to know. I'll know better next season, if there is one. —  Wylie Coyote  21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Newsroom Error
Hi,

I was the person that changed the episode count for the Newsroom; you were right, sorry about that! I assumed that since their end air date was ??? their listings couldn't be trusted, but missed the episode count in the description straight from HBO. I'll be more careful next time.

(I'm assuming this is the right way to send you a message) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.190.13 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'ts no big deal. And yes, this is the right way to send a message. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Incivility
If you object to the formatting of an edit, fine. Fix it, by all means. But keep it civil; what you said in your edit summary borders on a personal attack, and sinks lower by using disability as an insult. You wouldn't use membership in a racial group as an insult, so what makes you think using disability is a suitable, much less appropriate way to criticize an editor? --Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think using a disability to criticize you is sensible, but you're assuming I'm not an insensitive asshole. I am. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Happily Divorced production codes
I know you removed the production code column for season 1 a while ago, but if you are interested here are all of the production codes for season 1 and 2. QuasyBoy (talk)  13:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! I'll add them when I get a chance. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. QuasyBoy (talk)  03:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven season column widths
Hello. I took the time to unify the column widths for all seasons of Haven and you have returned them to the the way they were before I started. You say that it is unnecessary, but I don't think you've noticed the results on the unified page of all episodes. It's not very nice. Could you please restore the controlled widths? -- I.Hutchesson  ► 08:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Controlling widths is an outdated and unnecessary procedure. The way the template of the tables is set up, they automatically adjust how wide they are based on their content, i.e. the "No." column will be smaller because they only contain one to two numbers, whereas the writers column will be wider because there is more information in them. I have noticed the results on the main episode list page and it seems fine to me. Unnecessarily enforcing column widths causes line breaks (makes information that would normally fit on one line be spread across two) or squishes everything together. It looks cluttered and messy. There's no logical reason to force column widths to an arbitrary measurement when the table itself will automatically adjust each column to best accommodate the information. If you're having trouble with the main list maybe you should try adjusting the magnification on your monitor. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are still talking as though you haven't grasped the overall issue. You haven't shown any consideration of the fact that the column widths I imposed specifically took into consideration the exigencies of the contents of the columns themselves, such that there was no cluttering or mess. However, leaving it to the auto-adjustment of the software in this case leads to a substandard layout on the main page containing the combined episode presentation. There is a clear logical reason for better, consistent layout. I'm sure that you don't want the impression that the full list article was laid out with a knife and fork, as it does at the moment. There is a reason for the option to specify column widths: to improve on the results of auto-adjustment. This is a case where you can get a better presentation. And it may be that your monitor needs repair. -- I.Hutchesson  ► 13:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Then what so-called "substandards" are you talking about exactly? Both the individual season pages and the main page look fine to me. And since you're the only person to have ever complained about it, not only with Haven, but with every list of episodes article I am involved with, I'm still thinking that you just don't like the way it looks, which is not a justifiable reason to make unnecessary changes. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but did you get to see the main page before you reverted the individual seasons? My guess is that you didn't. Perhaps if you had, you might have a different opinion now. There's a reason why graphic designers don't let the software set the layout. And it's not about protecting endangered jobs. The reason why Wiki software auto-adjusts such things as column widths is that it makes the process easier for people who don't know how or can't be bothered. The result is often pedestrian, but it's better than nothing. I'm sure you'd prefer magazines with a conscious layout to one set out by a computer. One size doesn't fit all... unless you're Frank Zappa. -- I.Hutchesson  ► 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra organization RfC
Hi, I'm contacting you becaused you expressed an opinion in Articles for deletion/The Legend of Korra (Book 2). Because it appears likely that the AfD will not end with deletion, I've set up a request for comment (RfC) on the talk page of the article about the series about how to organize the topic into subarticles. If you are interested, I'd appreciate it if you would add your opinion in that RfC. Regards,  Sandstein   06:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Production codes.
Is there a source for producton codes that you add on List of The Vampire Diaries page? MichelleTheola (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No need. Like episode titles and air dates, once the date has passed it becomes a matter of public record and doesn't need to be referenced. Since all the episodes have aired, and their production codes are included in the end credits, sourcing them is redundant, see List of Fringe episodes or List of The Mentalist episodes as examples. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Touch overview table
SchrutedIt08, How in the world is it "clearer" than the way I edited it? Do I have to explain each change? OK, "Number (No.) of episodes" is a much clearer description than just Episodes; "Originally aired" is not needed at all, and does not make it clearer; Time slot is not one word (certainly not clearer); it should be "release dates" (plural), since there are more than one under that heading; there is no need for a Region 4 column since there is nothing there; and "TBA" rarely should be used for anything -- N/A (not applicable) is much more preferable and accurate. (I also changed the all-caps in the title of a ref.) --Musdan77 (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is clearer for many reasons. 1) "Number of episodes" is unnecessary because the content of the column is self-evident. 2) "Originally aired" is necessary because if it's not there editors from other countries tend to also add the premiere/finale dates of other nations, i.e. when they aired in the UK, Europe or wherever. Since this is an American show, those dates are irrelevant, but others (IP editors mostly) tend to just add them anyway unless there is some kind of deterrent, hence "Originally aired". The next two are fine, I have no problem with those. N/A (not applicable) implies that there won't be a date provided. "TBA" is more appropriate because that's exactly what it is, the date intended to go there hasn't been announced yet. Not applicable means that the information that would go there (when it is announced) doesn't apply in this instance, which is completely inaccurate. When you come across something you disagree with on this site, a helpful tool is to pause for a moment and try to consider the fact that it wasn't done haphazardly. I created the formatting in the series overview on Touch because it serves a specific purpose, not just to annoy editors who don't like the look of it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of this comes down to personal opinion, judgement and preference. You say that Number of episodes is self-evident; I disagree (and it doesn't follow being "clearer"). You say that "Originally aired" is necessary; I disagree. Idiot editors are going to do things no matter what. I doubt that that is any deterrent. "TBA" implies that it will be announced soon, which of course it won't if the season hasn't even started yet. Personally, I think that an m-dash (or even just blank) is better than either "TBA" or "N/A". I don't/didn't think that things are done "haphazardly". When I edit, I try to figure what is the very best way to it should be. A lot of times someone will create a table or article, and just do it the way they've seen it done, or the way they've always done it. Saying, "I created" (WP:Ownership_of_articles) is telling. It implies (I know other editors do this too) that because you created it, it is the only way it should be, and if anyone makes changes, you can just revert it all, not allowing for any collaboration. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy (season 2)
Hi, I had to undo your relinking of the writers and directors at the above article. When you Twinkle rollbacked the unlinking, you also reverted my edit that fixed the styling of the references in the episode list. Feel free to relink the writers/directors, and in the future, please be sure to check what else you're reverting when rollbacking a series of edits. TRLIJC19 ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that's my bad, Sorry about that, and cheers for pointing it out. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi SchrutedIt08,

Sorry for reverting your edits on the Weeds (season 8) article and thank you for rewording that phrase I had trouble doing myself as well as removing some unnecessary wording!

ATC. Talk 02:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! Just here to help. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Another page for your watchlist!
Hell on Wheels (season 2). Enjoy! — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just in time for the premiere. Thanks for the heads up. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've learned to wait for the new seasons to begin (or soon before) in creating seasonals. Some 'pedians don't like "early" articles, I've learned. Plus, HoW hasn't given much up as far as inside knowledge goes: hardly any production or casting news. I've heard where Virginia Madsen is supposed to guest star as Durant's wife, but nothing sourced, for example. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

GreenArrowTV
I'm not sure why you would delete references to GreenArrowTV, as the webmaster, Craig Byrne, is a professional writer and webmaster of KSiteTV.com as well as several companion books. If that is the site where the material originated, that should be the credited source. It is no less professional and official as Comic Book Resources or Comic Book Movie, two sources that ARE allowed. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.213.206 (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yo
I am going to be friendly this time, but before reverting my constructive edits on Dexter articles please bother reading and replying on Featured list removal candidates/List of Dexter episodes/archive1. Since you are around for years I won't explain you what wp:FL, wp:FL?, wp:FLC, and wp:FLRC mean. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize this was for FL stuff. I have no patience for that featured list bullshit, it's all meaningless to me. WP rules, by and large, are completely idiotic and, from my point of view, ruining a perfectly good list by imposing said idiotic rules is even more idiotic. Forcing table widths in spite of the fact that each column does contain different information makes no sense and creating viewer columns when there is no information to put in them is even more senseless. I realise that you're just following FL guidelines, but the guidelines are total bullshit. If you want to adhere by them to get the list to featured, which again means nothing, that's fine. I won't revert your edits. When it comes to all the bureaucratic nonsense the goes along with FA/FL stuff, I'm more than happy to sit it out. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. When you recently edited The Mentalist (season 5), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Forsythe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with The Futon Critic website
Have you noticed any issues lately with Futon Critic? My browser will not let me enter their sites because of craveonline.com's "suspicious tracking", calling Futon a "harmful" website. Just wondering, as this site have been very informative for show titles and dates in the past, if you get any flags. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I did have the same issue a few ago, but it stopped and hasn't happened again. Weird. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. It must be making its rounds then. I will wait to see if it clears up locally. My local server won't even let me bypass it. Thanks for the reply. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It somehow cleared up with new links. I haven't gone back to previous ones to check as I'm pleased to have it back. It also cleared up some pesky junk e-mails too! *knock wood* Methinks Crave Online had something to do with it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Walking Dead S2 DVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Walking Dead S2 DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:JSydel
Your intentions may be good, but you are not entitled to revert the blankings of a user on their own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. You are actually edit-warring with the editor, compounding the problem. You may post warnings on their talk page, but they can remove them if they wish, although they are presumed to have read them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Last Resort
Please don't be so trigger happy. In the situation where the entire text is indeed cut and paste, fine, delete it. But that was not this case. You could have tagged the offending few words or revised it yourself, instead you repeatedly deleted the entire summary. I don't like being accused of copy pasting when all my contributions, which you deleted twice, were revisions and new text.

In principle: text describing a sequence of events is only copyright in how it is expressed. Rewording it removes the only original, copyrightable element. In detail: Only the first sentence was "basically identical". Someone (not me) obviously did paste that in. It was a line from a press release. There is not even theoretical copyright problem, since fair use clearly applies, and zero risk of legal action and no urgency to remove it without any discussion.

I have completely revised the text to forestall edit warring, not because it was actually necessary from any rational regard for copyright. If you believe there is a problem, you can use the { {copypaste}} or tags to indicate exactly what and where your issue is instead of deleting a whole section. If it isn't fixed within a few days then you can escalate it. Or you could even discuss it on the Talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Arrow PC
About your adding the PC for the premiere of Arrow, might it be that you misread it? Normally WB doesn't have a letter as the 5th character. In recent years when they have included a letter it is the 2nd character. Of late they are all 6 numbers. The version on iTunes is 296818. You typed 29687B. On the off chance it isn't a typo i am curious where you got it from because that would indicate it is a different version of the episode and a format for the WB PC i have not seen before. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a typo. I retrieved the production code from epguides.com's Arrow page (http://www.epguides.com/Arrow/). While not an official source, they are known for having reliable and accurate information on production codes because they are added after the fact (see their pages for Fringe and Supernatural). But if iTunes lists a different code, then I'm not exactly sure. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's say it isn't your typo. epguides directly draws their data these days from TVRage. I am not sure if it is live or periodic updates. TVRage isn't exactly something i personally know of to be accurate. More often it is quite the opposite. Here's a screenshot of the iTunes release. If whomever contributed it to TVRage read it off of a broadcast on The CW it might have been harder to read (i haven't watched of late to see what The CW's network-styled end credits look like but at times in the past they have been horribly illegible). delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I decided to make the edit to the Arrow article. If recent climate is ongoing it might be a bit of a hostile action. And in a related bit, ever found a script with "Teleplay by" that didn't also have "Story by" because i haven't. Which comes first is pretty much a personal preference but you won't have one without the other but you can have neither and in their place a "Written by" or simply "By". I ♥ reading talk pages. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 04:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, thanks for clearing it up. I don't know why it should be hostile. If that's the production code then I doubt anyone will have a problem with it being there. As a side not, sometimes you can actually find episodes that use the teleplay credit without a story credit, most often in shows that are based on novels (they've used it a couple of times in FlashForward and Gossip Girl) or someone else's work. The American version of The Inbetweeners has used the teleplay format for most of its episodes so far because they so closely resemble their British counterparts. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the scripts / episodes, if you look closely enough you will probably find a "Based on" somewhere. LOUK has that as so far every single episode has been adapted from the US version. It could be episode specific or encompassing the whole of the show. As for the hostile edit, again, if you look closely you might see that editing of Arrow hasn't been all handshakes and hugs. Story credit goes for just that, writing the story. Adapting it into a screenplay gets one the credit for that. One can't submit oral discourse of a work-product nature for copyright registration. Which means they had to type it or get a pen and write it. Such can be the entertainment value of a talk page. The original filmed pilot of The Big Bang Theory has a different production code than that of the broadcast version. 276018 and 276023. Edits of an episode usually carry the same pc. The Smallville Canadian premiere, which was the 2-hour movie version found on the DVD, bears the pc of ep 1 and ep 2 and not some different pc. And of course whomever typeset the credits for Arrow for broadcast could have been the source of the typo. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American Horror Story episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ryan Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Glee production codes
I was wondering about your edit summaries which stated, "Production codes are a matter of public record. Like titles/writers/directors they don't need to be sources after the fact. But they can be found here: http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/64/". I'm not sure why production codes would not need to be sourced after the fact: this is not information that is easily verifiable. The other info—titles, writers, editors, first air date—is readily available from press releases or reviews or credits in the episode itself, but are production codes? I haven't seen them in any of those usual places; the Fox press releases have a "GLE" number, e.g., "GLE-403", which isn't the same as the production code that was added or is on that site you cited. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't the production codes listed in the end credits of the episodes themselves? Either way, the source I provided is an official Fox affiliate and I don't really see how it could be considered unreliable. As for the "GLE" number thing, I was under the impression that was just a designation The Futon Critic gave to episodes and not an actual production code. They do this with a number of other shows, such as "Fringe", using "FR"-number, even though that's not the production code. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the GLE- numbers are in the original Fox press release, which is where The Futon Critic gets it from, at least for Fox shows. I'm embarrassed to admit, though, that I'd never noticed the production number in the episode credits, but I just slipped in my season 3 disk, and there it is on the final credits screen of "Nationals", #3ARC21, just below the copyright information. Thanks for pointing it out. While I suspect that the method of determining the production code is to take the GLE-321 number, eliminate the GLE- and insert "ARC" after the first (season) digit, to extrapolate strikes me as either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and thus not safe for episodes prior to airing. I appreciate your patience with me on this. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No patience was required, I promise you. As long as the right information gets out there in the end, that's all that matters. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With glee GLE-### is the broadcast code and #ARC## is the production code. You get this when NewsCorp both makes and broadcasts a particular show. With NewsCorp shows you can almost always swap them; rarely will there be a case of the numbers not being in agreement for a particular episode. For some older shows made by different subsidiaries of NewsCorp, such as The Pretender, the production code was "modernised" for lack of a better word to bring it in line with the 6 character format in use these days. The first season was made by MTM Enterprises and the first episode itself has 03101; on the Fox In Flight site it is listed as 1ABP01. In the case of The Pretender the MTM 5 number format often does not align with the numbering of the current 6 character format. Under their current format an episode made as a pilot is always assigned 1LLL79, where L is some letter; if a "modernisation" was done the first episode will be assigned 1LLL01. If the pilot episode was abandoned, such as with Dollhouse, you will also find the production code for the first broadcast episode won't be 1LLL79 but if it is re-shot due to cast changes, such as with Wonderfalls or Sons Of Tucson, the finalised version of the pilot will still bare a 1LLL79 production code. That all applies to 20th Century Fox Television. Shows made by Fox Television Studios usually have an entirely different production code format in the credits. The first episode of The Good Guys is 5042-10-101/S101 in the credits but is BDE101 on the Fox In Flight site. You will find the LLL### format for other shows such as White Collar, the first episode of which is BCW179. With Fox Television Studios shows the numbers before and after the / are not always the same. The fourth episode broadcast of The Good Guys, "The Dim Knight", is 5042-10-105/S107 and on Fox In Flight is BDE105. FoxInFlight.com is the syndication sales site for air travel. CBS also has a publicly viewable site for conventional television syndication. CBS uses non-unique numbering but it will tell you within a particular show what the production sequence is (for example, the first two episodes of season 3 of Blue Bloods were flipped for broadcast). BlueMoonset, I hope this has helped you in some way otherwise it is just a really long response from someone who noticed this discussion in her watchlist. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

GA episode count
Hi, Template:Grey's Anatomy episode count exists for the purpose of updating the episode count. If/when you update the count, change the template so that it changes the other pages with the episode count as well. Thanks, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen this before?
In the latest episode article for American Horror Story: Asylum, they use cites in the plot section. I have never ever seen this before and it just doesn't make sense to me. I know the idea is to add to the episode's notability, but I checked the sources and they are not verbatim to the wording in this particular plot recap. I don't think the sources in the plot section are that necessary, as the plot appears to be in their own words and not copyvio. I've never seen such a thing before, except in Episode List summaries, have you? Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No I've never seen it before that I can think of. Summaries shouldn't need referencing in an episode's article, particularly after the fact. You might want to check and see who added the references in the first place. They might have a good reason. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the Edit History. They created the article after it aired and added a basic plot with references. I thought this was odd, as well, as it is not a "future" summary. I'll remove the plot cites. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Links at "Episodes"
I've no problem with your removal of the See also links. I put them there because they'd been deceptively piped to "British" and "American" in the opening sentence. People get offended if Year in X links are removed. You're right: they shouldn't have been there at all. Or maybe they used to get offended; I don't know.

Please feel free to remove these from TV-related articles if you come across them! Tony  (talk)  13:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The New Normal
Don't worry. I will gladly edit war you on this every single day. The episode exists. It is released, though not on television. What you are doing amounts to censorship and i-dont-like-it. The infobox is episodes broadcast or if otherwise differing from broadcast with proof of existence. You simply don't like the proof but the proof is there. And i wasn't changing the number of episodes broadcast. I was filling out the episode list. "Para-New Normal Activity" is the 8th released episode and the 8th produced episode. It belongs in the 8th place. And the episode list isn't bound by the restriction of only-broadcast-episodes that the infobox is subject to. I've got my 3 edit limit for today but tomorrow is a new day and i will then again proudly undo your censorship. Or you could look it up and revert yourself and save us a lot of hassle. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 01:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The langue in the article is poor as you can't "air" episodes online because by their very nature they are not transmitted through the air but online distribution of episodes isn't irrelevant. See List of Man Up! episodes as one such example. Another, which i did ratings and style for but not the content, is List of Six Degrees episodes. Yet another, in which i did formatting and production codes and ratings is Drive (TV series). Whether it be streaming on the broadcaster's website or for sale via third party retailers the non-broadcast of episodes does count. If you care to search through WP you will find hundreds of such instances. The other-stuff-exists anti-arguement does get negated at some point beyond there being one or two or three comparable instances. Think about it. And in case you don't know where to find it here is the web page version of The New Normal on US iTunes. You should see "Para-New Normal Activity" as the 8th episode.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 02:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not debating the existence of the episode at all, I'm merely suggesting that it shouldn't be included until we have an actual air date. Just because it was the eighth episode produced does not mean it must be the eighth episode in the table. On Wikipedia we go by the broadcast date to list episodes almost universally. The only exception that comes to mind is Futurama and that was only done because there was such a major discrepancy between the production order and the broadcast order. The three examples you have listed (Drive, Man Up, Six Degrees) are completely irrelevant examples because they refer to episodes that weren't aired because the series was cancelled and the episodes only ever aired online, which is not the case here. Something similar has happened right now with the eighth season of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. The episode called "Charlie's Mom Has Cancer" was originally scheduled to be the fourth episode, then was delayed until the fifth. The same thing has happened again and now it won't be aired until the sixth. Should we put it in fourth place regardless of the actual air date? Of course not. That's senseless. Your only argument really is that it was made available on iTunes ahead of the broadcast date. If you would like to mention that in an episode article or somewhere in the broadcast section of the page, be my guest. "Para-New Normal Activity" was supposed to be the eighth episode broadcast, and there's every chance it still will be, but until NBC releases another press release on the matter, or another reliable third party source announces when the episode will air, it shouldn't be included as episode eight.-- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me quote the actual statement of use for the infobox number of episodes parametre instead of the commonly assumed "number broadcast" meaning: num_episodes  The number of episodes released. In case of cancelation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired.. The number of episodes released. It doesn't necessarily require broadcast on television, though that is the most common method of initial release. As for an online release of an episode during a show's initial broadcast i would direct your attention to List of The Black Donnellys episodes and specifically "God Is a Comedian Playing to an Audience Afraid to Laugh". People for some dumb reason thought it made sense to call it episode 2.5 instead of episode 3. It isn't a short, a special, or anything like that; it is a normal episode that wasn't cleared by NBC's lawyers for network television broadcast. And it seems that NBC is now saying the leaving it available is also a mistake. So you win. But that still doesn't invalidate the info and removing or hiding it is still censorship with a motive of i-dont-like-it. But it seems a lot of people on WP think that an episode exists because of a press release and if an over-riding press release is issued said episode of whatever show magically no longer exists. That is so far from appropriate and logical but it is so common place here it is why i usually can't be bothered to tolerate even editing an episode list on WP any more. And the NBC press releases covering November simply have "TBA" for The New Normal which isn't very helpful.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 8 Ratings
Hi there, Not sure If you can help me here, but this user User:108.87.136.119 continues to revert edits on the Supernatural (season 8) page. The ratings for episode 8x05 is 1.78 million, with the source also backing the claim, however this user continues to revert the edit without an explanation to 2.11 million, which is incorrect. I have sent the user a warning, they have ignored it, So I am seeking higher authority here, and see that you are a well respected editor on wikipedia. I need your help, thanks! B.Davis2003 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be happy to keep an eye out to see if they do it again. If they do and continue to ignore warnings from each of us then we can call in an administrator to see what can be done about it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office double date a.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office double date a.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office mafia.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office mafia.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office niagara a.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office niagara a.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office koi pond.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office koi pond.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office murder.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office murder.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office scott's tots.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office scott's tots.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office shareholder.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office shareholder.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office secret santa.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office secret santa.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office promotion.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office promotion.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office lover.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office lover.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office meeting.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office meeting.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hunted (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Strong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Office scott's tots.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Office scott's tots.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 3)
Hi, you've now reverted my edit twice. You think that because Westeros.org is a fan site, it is not reliable. I think you're wrong; there's nothing more reliable than the eager fans that have collected this information through interviews and HBO executives. Also referencing that site has been approved. You say that the article doesn't say which episodes MacLaren will be directing, but it does say it. Even on the title. Furthermore, episode 7 has been titled "Autumn Storms" and it has been written by George R. R. Martin himself. He has also confirmed this himself. David Nutter will be directing the last two with cinematographer Robert McLachlan onboard. So what's the problem here? The information I posted is legit, why wait until the episodes have been aired? --URunICon (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The episode seven stuff is properly sourced, so I don't have a problem with it at all. As for MacLaren, Wikipedia's policies about using fan sites as sources is pretty clear, see WP:FANSITE. Westoros.org is not written by a recognized authority, nor do they themselves disclose where exactly they've gotten their information. I don't think we have to wait until the episodes have aired, only until we can get more solid information from better sources. After all, the season is more than four months away from airing and most of the table you want to add is blank. No titles, writers or air dates for nine out of the ten episodes and six without directors (eight if you discount the MacLaren entry). Until there's more to go on, it's wasted space. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read the Michelle MacLaren reference that I added? They said a source: a Huffington Post television critic Maureen Ryan, who tweeted about an interview she did with MacLaren. So she is directing episodes 7 & 8 whether you like it or not. The titles will not be announced until weeks before the episode is due to air. HBO airs all its episodes in a row, so they will all air a week after the previous one. We know all the directors that are going to direct, but the episodes are unclear. Only Nutter's and MacLaren's episodes have been announced. I'm sure HBO will inform us the rest later. I still don't understand why can't we use the information we have now. It's odd having to wait, it doesn't make any sense. --URunICon (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My problem is not with the actual content but the way that you're sourcing it and the timing. You say Westeros.org uses the Huffington Post as a source, fine. Use the Huff Post article, no the Westeros article. And as I said above, adding the table now is a complete waste of space when 90% is blank. No viewer information, no ratings, titles, writers. It's completely pointless having so much empty space so far in advance when a simple line or two in the production section can relay the exact same information with a fraction of the space. If a reliable source comes up with a complete list of directors or the remaining air dates then by all means, create the table. It has to be created sooner or later, but later is better especially when we have so little to actually put in it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make if we use Westeros.org instead of Huffington Post if the article tells the exact same thing? Stop treating Westeros.org as "just a fan site" when it clearly is something more than that. Before season 2 started airing, you added the season two table, back in February. So it's odd that you don't let anyone else do the same. --URunICon (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Westoros.org is not "clearly something more" than a fan site. It's a site run by fans, therefore it is a fan site. The difference is that one is a reliable source and the other isn't. I didn't write the site's policies on reliable sources, I just follow the rules. And yes, I did add the season two table. In February, two months before the season premiered, not in November four months before. And if I recall at that point we had a complete list of directors and air dates for the episodes, unlike now when we have neither. The directors and air dates had been confirmed by official sources at HBO and the Westeros.org article was used because it was the only place I could find that listed all the directors and their episodes in one place. There was no better source available at the time, which is not the case now, apparently. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk:Game of Thrones (season 3). Please see that if you still believe Westeros.org is just a fan site. HBO gives information to both Westeros and WinterIsComing to pass along to fans and others reading the site. If HBO thinks they are reliable so should we. And what makes Westeros.org even more legit is that the owners are co-publishing a book with George R. R. Martin. They're clearly something more than fan sites so stop being naive. I don't think that timing matters. This year HBO released the directors earlier than last year. True, the episodes aren't clear yet, but the air dates are self-explanatory. I don't think HBO has ever not aired all the episodes in a row. Why would they do differently this year? --URunICon (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine I concede that Westeros is more than a fan site. But what you're talking about between this year and last year is completely different. Last year all the directors and their episodes were released, unlike now. We know the all the directors, but not which episodes they are directing. And as for the air dates, what you're talking about is original research, which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia, see WP:OR. HBO hasn't released the air dates yet. Yes, it's more than likely they will air all ten continuously but you can't just assume that's what will happen without backing it up. And, HBO has actually taken breaks in their schedules. Seasons two and three of True Blood each had two interruptions, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that it will happen with Game of Thrones. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for acknowledging Westeros.org. Okay, we'll the table at a later date, when Futon Critic tells us the dates :D --URunICon (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're a "non-involved good-standing editor," right?
Could you be a pal and close this AfD? It's for one of my American Horror Story articles and someone nommed it before I could add things to it. I believe the consensus is keep, if not mistaken. Thanks! — WylieCoyote 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance but I've never closed an AfD, so is there anything special I need to do? Is there a template to be used or can I just go on there and say "discussion closed"? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you can use this script and "keep" it or go through the WP:AFD/AI process. — WylieCoyote 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Thank you. And congrats on closing your first AfD! I did some minor work at The Origins of Monstrosity, where the original tag was placed, moving the old AfD to the talk page, but other than that, you did great! — WylieCoyote 04:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

 * Awesome, thanks! -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks
...for reverting 50.133.218.158's "Family Guy" edits. I had already brought his possible copyright violation edits to an administrator's attention here (bottom of page). - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. Seems like 99% per cent of my time here is spent reverting IP editors who post copyright violations. It's a pain in the ass but it has to be done, doesn't it? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for reverting the editor. I have posted a copyright violation warning on his talk page here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew he was removing content without a reason, but I actually wasn't aware he was replacing them with copyrighted stuff. That's crazy. I can see on his talk page that he's never replied to any message left for him. IP editors often don't. We'll have to keep an eye on it and see what he does. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Profanity in titles (Dexter and Homeland)
You reverted my edits, citing that Showtime may simply be a public website censoring themselves, yet any other website that can be cited is also public.

Your source, tvcountdown.com is an automated site that uses two other sites, tvrage.com and thetvdb.com for its information. Is it not better to go to the website of the show's producers? Ryan8374 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Official sources are not necessary as long as the source that you're using is reliable. And the Showtime website has nothing to do with the actual producers of the show, it's run by the network, or rather a company the network has hired to maintain it. The show producers have nothing more to do with the site than you or I. As for the censorship thing, of course most cites are going to censor the word "motherfucker", why wouldn't they? But that does not mean that we have to, or that that actual censorship itself is part of the title. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Under the Dome (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Nevins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)